Wrap it up case study solution

Case Study

Here the requirements:
Do not summarize the case in the paper
This written analysis should be between three and five pages, 12 point font double spaced with normal margins. Any exhibits or appendices will be in addition to this limit. The analysis should be
concise and coherent.
A written analysis should clearly and succinctly state the recommendations in the first paragraph. The remainder of the paper should provide the rationale for the recommendations. Students are to use the assigned case questions to help with their analysis of the case, but are encouraged to not just narrowly answer the questions. You should use headings throughout the paper to highlight areas of focus which can be drawn from the assigned questions.
You are expected to connect your insights to readings and any additional research that you have conducted.
1-What are the issues that Wrapitup is experiencing?
2-What do you believe is the root cause/s of the issues?
3-What are the strengths and weaknesses of the ShareIt program?
4-Does the program address the issues?
5-What would you do?
Please use Ro and Chen, Druskat, berry articles to support your answers, I will attached them all

Attached file: Wrapitup - developing a new compensation plan.pdf

This the case study. That you going to write about

Attached file: Druskat and Wolf (2001).pdf

Third support article

Attached file: Berry and Seiders (2009).pdf

Second support article

Attached file: Ro and Chen (2011) (1).pdf

Emotional Intelligence of Groups

By now, most executives have accepted that emotional intelligence is as critical as IQ to an individual’s effectiveness. But much of the important work in organizations is done in teams. New research uncovers what emotional intelligence at the group level looks like – and how to achieve it.

hen managers first started hearing about

the concept of emotional intelligence in the 1990s, scales fell from their eyes. The basic message, that effec- tiveness in organizations is at least as much about EQ as IQ, resonated deeply; it was something that people knew in their guts but that had never before been so well artic- ulated. Most important, the idea held the potential for positive change. Instead of being stuck with the hand they’d been dealt, people could take steps to enhance their emotional intelligence and make themselves more effective in their work and personal lives.

Indeed, the concept of emotional intelligence had real impact. The only problem is that so far emotional intelli- gence has been viewed only as an individual competency, when the reality is that most work in organizations is done by teams. And if managers have one pressing need today, it’s to find ways to make teams work better.

by Vanessa Urch Druskat

and Steven B. Wolff

It is with real excitement, therefore, that we share these findings from our research: individual emotional intelli- gence has a group analog, and it is just as critical to groups’ effectiveness. Teams can develop greater emo- tional intelligence and, in so doing, boost their overall performance.

Why Should Teams Build Their Emotional Intelligence? No one would dispute the importance of making teams work more effectively. But most research about how to do so has focused on identifying the task processes that distinguish the most successful teams – that is, specifying the need for cooperation, participation, commitment to goals, and so forth. The assumption seems to be that, once identified, these processes can simply be imitated by other teams, with similar effect. It’s not true. By analogy, think of it this way: a piano student can be taught to play Min- uet in G, but he won’t become a modern-day Bach without knowing music theory and being able to play with heart. Similarly, the real source of a great team’s success lies in the fundamental conditions that allow effective task pro- cesses to emerge – and that cause members to engage in them wholeheartedly.

Our research tells us that three conditions are essential to a group’s effectiveness: trust among members, a sense of group identity, and a sense of group efficacy. When these conditions are absent, going through the motions of cooperating and participating is still possible. But the team will not be as effective as it could be, because mem- bers will choose to hold back rather than fully engage. To be most effective, the team needs to create emotionally intelligent norms – the attitudes and behaviors that even- tually become habits – that support behaviors for building trust, group identity, and group efficacy. The outcome is complete engagement in tasks. (For more on how emo- tional intelligence inf luences these conditions, see the sidebar “A Model of Team Effectiveness.”)

Three Levels of Emotional Interaction Make no mistake: a team with emotionally intelligent members does not necessarily make for an emotionally intelligent group. A team, like any social group, takes on its own character. So creating an upward, self-rein- forcing spiral of trust, group identity, and group efficacy requires more than a few members who exhibit emotion- ally intelligent behavior. It requires a team atmosphere in which the norms build emotional capacity (the ability to respond constructively in emotionally uncomfortable sit- uations) and influence emotions in constructive ways.

Team emotional intelligence is more complicated than individual emotional intelligence because teams interact

at more levels. To understand the differences, let’s first look at the concept of individual emotional intelligence as defined by Daniel Goleman. In his definitive book Emo- tional Intelligence, Goleman explains the chief character- istics of someone with high EI; he or she is aware of emo- tions and able to regulate them – and this awareness and regulation are directed both inward, to one’s self, and out- ward, to others. “Personal competence,” in Goleman’s words, comes from being aware of and regulating one’s own emotions.“Social competence” is awareness and reg- ulation of others’ emotions.

A group, however, must attend to yet another level of awareness and regulation. It must be mindful of the emo- tions of its members, its own group emotions or moods, and the emotions of other groups and individuals outside its boundaries.

In this article, we’ll explore how emotional incompe- tence at any of these levels can cause dysfunction. We’ll also show how establishing specific group norms that cre- ate awareness and regulation of emotion at these three levels can lead to better outcomes. First, we’ll focus on the individual level – how emotionally intelligent groups work with their individual members’ emotions. Next, we’ll focus on the group level. And finally, we’ll look at the cross-boundary level.

Working with Individuals’ Emotions Jill Kasper, head of her company’s customer service depart- ment, is naturally tapped to join a new cross-functional team focused on enhancing the customer experience: she has ex- tensive experience in and a real passion for customer service. But her teammates find she brings little more than a bad at- titude to the table. At an early brainstorming session, Jill sits silent, arms crossed, rolling her eyes. Whenever the team starts to get energized about an idea, she launches into a de- tailed account of how a similar idea went nowhere in the past. The group is confused: this is the customer service star they’ve been hearing about? Little do they realize she feels in- sulted by the very formation of the team. To her, it implies she hasn’t done her job well enough.

When a member is not on the same emotional wave- length as the rest, a team needs to be emotionally intelli- gent vis-à-vis that individual. In part, that simply means being aware of the problem. Having a norm that encour- ages interpersonal understanding might facilitate an awareness that Jill is acting out of defensiveness. And picking up on this defensiveness is necessary if the team

82 harvard business review

B u i l d i n g t h e E m o t i o n a l I n t e l l i g e n c e o f G r o u p s

Vanessa Urch Druskat is an assistant professor of organi- zational behavior at the Weatherhead School of Manage- ment at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. Steven B. Wolff is an assistant professor of management at the School of Management at Marist College in Pough- keepsie, New York.

wants to make her understand its desire to amplify her good work, not negate it.

Some teams seem to be able to do this naturally. At Hewlett-Packard, for instance, we learned of a team that was attempting to cross-train its members. The idea was that if each member could pinch-hit on everyone else’s job, the team could deploy efforts to whatever task re- quired the most attention. But one member seemed very uncomfortable with learning new skills and tasks; accus- tomed to being a top producer in his own job, he hated not knowing how to do a job perfectly. Luckily, his team- mates recognized his discomfort, and rather than being an- noyed, they redoubled their efforts to support him. This team benefited from a group norm it had established over time emphasizing interpersonal understanding. The norm had grown out of the group’s realization that working to accurately hear and understand one another’s feelings and concerns improved member morale and a willing- ness to cooperate.

Many teams build high emotional intelligence by tak- ing pains to consider matters from an individual mem- ber’s perspective. Think of a situation where a team of four must reach a decision; three favor one direction and the fourth favors another. In the interest of expedience, many teams in this situation would move directly to a ma-

march 2001 83

B u i l d i n g t h e E m o t i o n a l I n t e l l i g e n c e o f G r o u p s

Study after study has shown that teams are more creative and productive when they can achieve high levels of participation, cooperation, and collabo- ration among members. But interactive behaviors like these aren’t easy to legislate. Our work shows that three basic conditions need to be present before such behaviors can occur: mutual trust among members, a sense of group identity (a feeling among members that they belong to a unique and worthwhile group), and a sense of group efficacy (the belief that the team can perform well and that group members are more effective working to- gether than apart).

At the heart of these three conditions are emotions. Trust, a sense of iden- tity, and a feeling of efficacy arise in environments where emotion is well handled, so groups stand to benefit by building their emotional intelligence.

Group emotional intelligence isn’t a question of dealing with a necessary evil– catching emotions as they bubble up and promptly suppressing them. Far from it. It’s about bringing emotions deliberately to the surface and understanding how they affect the team’s work. It’s also about behaving in ways that build relationships both inside and outside the team and that strengthen the team’s ability to face challenges. Emotional intelligence means exploring, embracing, and ultimately relying on emotion in work that is, at the end of the day, deeply human.

jority vote. But a more emotionally intelligent group would pause first to hear out the objection. It would also ask if everyone were completely behind the decision, even if there appeared to be consensus. Such groups would ask, “Are there any perspectives we haven’t heard yet or thought through completely?”

Perspective taking is a team behavior that teamwork experts discuss often – but not in terms of its emotional consequence. Many teams are trained to use perspective- taking techniques to make decisions or solve problems (a common tool is affinity diagramming). But these tech- niques may or may not improve a group’s emotional in- telligence. The problem is that many of these techniques consciously attempt to remove emotion from the process by collecting and combining perspectives in a mechanical way. A more effective approach to perspective taking is to ensure that team members see one another making the effort to grapple with perspectives; that way, the team has a better chance of creating the kind of trust that leads to greater participation among members.

An executive team at the Hay Group, a consulting firm, engages in the kind of deep perspective taking we’re de- scribing. The team has done role-playing exercises in which members adopt others’ opinions and styles of inter- action. It has also used a “storyboarding” technique, in

A Model of Team Effectiveness

better decisions, more creative solutions,

higher productivity

participation, cooperation, collaboration

trust, identity, efficacy

group emotional intelligence

which each member creates a small poster representing his or her ideas. As team members will attest, these meth- ods and others have helped the group build trust and in- crease participation.

Regulating Individuals’ Emotions Interpersonal understanding and perspective taking are two ways that groups can become more aware of their members’ perspectives and feelings. But just as important as awareness is the ability to regulate those emotions – to have a positive impact on how they are expressed and even on how individual team members feel. We’re not talking about imposing groupthink or some other form of manipulation here – clearly, the goal must be to balance the team’s cohesion with members’ individuality. We’re simply acknowledging that people take their emotional cues from those around them. Something that seems up- setting initially can seem not so bad – or ten times worse – depending on whether one’s colleagues are inclined to smooth feathers or fan flames. The most constructive way of regulating team members’ emotions is by establishing norms in the group for both confrontation and caring.

It may seem illogical to suggest that an emotionally intelligent group must engage in confrontation, but it’s not. Inevitably, a team member will indulge in behavior that crosses the line, and the team must feel comfortable calling the foul. In one manufacturing team we studied, a member told us about the day she selfishly decided to extend her break. Before long, one of her teammates stormed into the break room, saying, “What are you do- ing in here? Get back out on the floor – your team needs you!” The woman had overstepped the bounds, and she got called on it. There were no hard feelings, because the woman knew the group valued her contributions.

Some teams also find that a little humor helps when point- ing out errant behavior. Teasing someone who is habitually late for meetings, for instance, can make that person aware of how important timeliness is to the group. Done right, con- frontation can be seen in a positive light; it’s a way for the group to say, “We want you in – we need your con- tribution.” And it’s especially important when a team must work together on a long-term assignment. Without confrontation, disruptive behavior can fester and erode a sense of trust in a team.

Establishing norms that reinforce caring behavior is often not very difficult and usually a matter of concen- trating on little things. When an individual is upset, for example, it may make all the difference to have group members acknowledge that person’s feelings. We saw this

in a meeting where one team member arrived angry be- cause the time and place of the meeting was very incon- venient for him. When another member announced the sacrifice the man had made to be there, and thanked him, the man’s attitude turned around 180 degrees. In general, a caring orientation includes displaying positive regard, appreciation, and respect for group members through be- haviors such as support, validation, and compassion.

Interpersonal understanding, perspective taking, con- frontation, caring – these norms build trust and a sense of group identity among members. And all of them can be established in teams where they don’t arise naturally. You may ask, But is it really worth all the effort? Does it make sense to spend managerial time fostering new norms to accommodate a few prickly personalities? Of course it does. Teams are at the very foundation of an organization, and they won’t work effectively without mutual trust and a common commitment to goals.

Working with Group Emotions Chris couldn’t believe it, but he was requesting a reassign- ment. The team he was on was doing good work, staying on budget, and hitting all its deadlines – though not always ele- gantly. Its leader, Stan Evans, just got a promotion. So why was being on the team such a downer? At the last major sta- tus meeting, they should have been serving champagne – so much had been achieved. Instead, everyone was thoroughly dispirited over a setback they hadn’t foreseen, which turned out later to be no big deal. It seemed no matter what hap- pened, the group griped. The team even saw Stan’s promo- tion in a negative light: “Oh, so I guess management wants to keep a closer eye on us” and “I hear Stan’s new boss

doesn’t back this project.” Chris had a friend on another team who was happy to put in a good word for him. The work was in- herently less interesting – but hey, at least they were having fun.

Some teams suffer because they aren’t aware of emotions at the group level. Chris’s team, for instance, isn’t aware of all it

has achieved, and it doesn’t acknowledge that it has fallen into a malaise. In our study of effective teams, we’ve found that having norms for group self-awareness – of emotional states, strengths and weaknesses, modes of in- teraction, and task processes – is a critical part of group emotional intelligence that facilitates group efficacy. Teams gain it both through self-evaluation and by solicit- ing feedback from others.

Self-evaluation can take the form of a formal event or a constant activity. At Sherwin Williams, a group of managers was starting a new initiative that would require higher levels of teamwork. Group members hired a con-

84 harvard business review

B u i l d i n g t h e E m o t i o n a l I n t e l l i g e n c e o f G r o u p s

Inevitably, a team member will

indulge in behavior that crosses

the line, and the team must feel

comfortable calling the foul.

sultant, but before the consultant arrived, they met to assess their strengths and weaknesses as a team. They found that merely articulat- ing the issues was an important step toward building their capabilities.

A far less formal method of rais- ing group emotional awareness is through the kind of activity we saw at the Veterans Health Administra- tion’s Center for Leadership and Development. Managers there have developed a norm in which they are encouraged to speak up when they feel the group is not being productive. For example, if there’s a post-lunch lull and people on the team are low on energy, some- one might say, “Don’t we look like a bunch of sad sacks?” With atten- tion called to it, the group makes an effort to refocus.

Emotionally competent teams don’t wear blinders; they have the emotional capacity to face poten- tially difficult information and ac- tively seek opinions on their task processes, progress, and perfor- mance from the outside. For some teams, feedback may come directly from customers. Others look to col- leagues within the company, to sup- pliers, or to professional peers. A group of designers we studied routinely posts its work in progress on walls throughout the building, with invita- tions to comment and critique. Similarly, many advertis- ing agencies see annual industry competitions as a valu- able source of feedback on their creative teams’ work.

Regulating Group Emotions Many teams make conscious efforts to build team spirit. Team-building outings, whether purely social or Outward Bound–style physical challenges, are popular methods for building this sense of collective enthusiasm. What’s going on here is that teams and their leaders recognize they can improve a team’s overall attitude – that is, they are regulating group-level emotion. And while the focus of a team-building exercise is often not directly related to a group’s actual work, the benefits are highly relevant: teams come away with higher emotional capacity and thus a greater ability to respond to emotional challenges.

The most effective teams we have studied go far be- yond the occasional “ropes and rocks” off-site. They have established norms that strengthen their ability to respond

march 2001 85

B u i l d i n g t h e E m o t i o n a l I n t e l l i g e n c e o f G r o u p s

effectively to the kind of emotional challenges a group confronts on a daily basis. The norms they favor accom- plish three main things: they create resources for working with emotions, foster an affirmative environment, and encourage proactive problem solving.

Teams need resources that all members can draw on to deal with group emotions. One important resource is a common vocabulary. To use an example, a group mem- ber at the Veterans Health Administration picked up on another member’s bad mood and told him that he was just “cranky” today. The “cranky” term stuck and became the group’s gentle way of letting someone know that their negativity was having a bad effect on the group. Other re- sources may include helpful ways to vent frustrations. One executive team leader we interviewed described his team’s practice of making time for a “wailing wall” – a few minutes of whining and moaning about some setback. Releasing and acknowledging those negative emotions,

Groups are most creative when their members collaborate unreservedly. People stop holding back when there is mutual trust, rooted in emotionally intelligent interactions.

the leader says, allows the group to refocus its attention on the parts of the situation it can control and channel its energy in a positive direction. But sometimes, venting takes more than words. We’ve seen more than one intense workplace outfitted with toys – like soft projectile shoot- ers – that have been used in games of cube warfare.

Perhaps the most obvious way to build emotional ca- pacity through regulating team-level emotion is simply to create an affirmative environment. Everyone values a team that, when faced with a challenge, responds with a can-do attitude. Again, it’s a question of having the right group norms – in this case, favoring optimism, and posi- tive images and interpretations over negative ones. This doesn’t always come naturally to a team, as one executive we interviewed at the Hay Group knows. When exter- nal conditions create a cycle of negativity among group members, he takes it upon himself to change the atmo- sphere of the group. He consciously resists the temptation to join the complaining and blaming and instead tries to reverse the cycle with a positive, constructive note.

One of the most powerful norms we have seen for building a group’s ability to respond to emotionally chal- lenging situations is an emphasis on proactive problem solving. We saw a lot of this going on in a manufacturing team we observed at AMP Corporation. Much of what this team needed to hit its targets was out of its strict con- trol. But rather than sit back and point fingers, the team worked hard to get what it needed from others, and in some cases, took matters into its own hands. In one in- stance, an alignment problem in a key machine was cre- ating faulty products. The team studied the problem and approached the engineering group with its own sug- gested design for a part that might correct the problem. The device worked, and the number of defective products decreased significantly.

This kind of problem solving is valuable for many rea- sons. It obviously serves the company by removing one more obstacle to profitability. But, to the point of our work, it also shows a team in control of its own emotions. It refused to feel powerless and was eager to take charge.

Working with Emotions Outside the Group Jim sighed. The “Bugs” team was at it again. Didn’t they see that while they were high-fiving one another over their im- pressive productivity, the rest of the organization was paying for it? This time, in their self-managed wisdom, they’d de- cided to make a three months’ supply of one component. No changeover meant no machine downtime and a record low cost per unit. But now the group downstream was swamped with inventory it didn’t need and worried about shortages of something else. Jim braced himself for his visit to the floor. The Bugs didn’t take criticism well; they seemed to think they were flawless and that everyone else was just trying to

86 harvard business review

B u i l d i n g t h e E m o t i o n a l I n t e l l i g e n c e o f G r o u p s

Group emotional intelligence is about the

small acts that make a big difference. It is not

about a team member working all night to

meet a deadline; it is about saying thank you

for doing so. It is not about in-depth discus-

sion of ideas; it is about asking a quiet mem-

ber for his thoughts. It is not about harmony,

lack of tension, and all members liking each

other; it is about acknowledging when har-

mony is false, tension is unexpressed, and

treating others with respect. The following

sidebar outlines some of the small things that

groups can do to establish the norms that

build group emotional intelligence.

Building Norms for Three Levels of Group Emotional Intelligence

take them down a notch. And what was with that name, any- way? Some kind of inside joke, Jim guessed. Too bad nobody else got it.

The last kind of emotional intelligence any high-per- forming team should have relates to cross-boundary rela- tionships. Just as individuals should be mindful of their own emotions and others’, groups should look both in- ward and outward emotionally. In the case of the Bugs, the team is acting like a clique – creating close emotional ties within but ignoring the feelings, needs, and con- cerns of important individuals and teams in the broader organization.

Some teams have developed norms that are particu- larly helpful in making them aware of the broader organi- zational context. One practice is to have various team mem- bers act as liaisons to important constituencies. Many teams are already made up of members drawn from dif- ferent parts of an organization, so a cross-boundary per- spective comes naturally. Others need to work a little harder. One team we studied realized it would be im- portant to understand the perspective of its labor union. Consequently, a team member from HR went to some lengths to discover the right channels for having a union member appointed to the group. A cross-boundary per- spective is especially important in situations where a team’s work will have significant impact on others in the organization – for example, where a team is asked to

march 2001 87

B u i l d i n g t h e E m o t i o n a l I n t e l l i g e n c e o f G r o u p s

Individual

Interpersonal Understanding 1. Take time away from group tasks

to get to know one another. 2. Have a “check in” at the beginning

of the meeting – that is, ask how everyone is doing.

3. Assume that undesirable behavior takes place for a reason. Find out what that reason is. Ask questions and listen. Avoid negative attributions.

4. Tell your teammates what you’re thinking and how you’re feeling.

Perspective Taking 1. Ask whether everyone agrees with

a decision. 2. Ask quiet members what they think. 3. Question decisions that come

too quickly. 4. Appoint a devil’s advocate.

Confronting 1. Set ground rules and use them to

point out errant behavior. 2. Call members on errant behavior. 3. Create playful devices for pointing

out such behavior. These often emerge from the group spontaneously. Reinforce them.

Caring 1. Support members: volunteer to help

them if they need it, be flexible, and provide emotional support.

2. Validate members’ contributions. Let members know they are valued.

3. Protect members from attack. 4. Respect individuality and differences

in perspectives. Listen. 5. Never be derogatory or demeaning.

Group

Team Self-Evaluation 1. Schedule time to examine team

effectiveness. 2. Create measurable task and process

objectives and then measure them. 3. Acknowledge and discuss group moods. 4. Communicate your sense of what

is transpiring in the team. 5. Allow members to call a “process check.”

(For instance, a team member might say, “Process check: is this the most effective use of our time right now?”)

Seeking Feedback 1. Ask your “customers” how you are doing. 2. Post your work and invite comments. 3. Benchmark your processes.

Creating Resources for Working with Emotion 1. Make time to discuss difficult issues,

and address the emotions that surround them.

2. Find creative, shorthand ways to acknowledge and express the emotion in the group.

3. Create fun ways to acknowledge and relieve stress and tension.

4. Express acceptance of members’ emotions.

Creating an Affirmative Environment 1. Reinforce that the team can meet a

challenge. Be optimistic. For example, say things like, “We can get through this” or “Nothing will stop us.”

2. Focus on what you can control. 3. Remind members of the group’s

important and positive mission. 4. Remind the group how it solved a

similar problem before. 5. Focus on problem solving, not blaming.

Solving Problems Proactively 1. Anticipate problems and address them

before they happen. 2. Take the initiative to understand and

get what you need to be effective. 3. Do it yourself if others aren’t responding.

Rely on yourself, not others.

Cross-Boundary

Organizational Understanding 1. Find out the concerns and needs

of others in the organization. 2. Consider who can influence the

team’s ability to accomplish its goals. 3. Discuss the culture and politics

in the organization. 4. Ask whether proposed team

actions are congruent with the organization’s culture and politics.

Building External Relationships 1. Create opportunities for networking

and interaction. 2. Ask about the needs of other teams. 3. Provide support for other teams. 4. Invite others to team meetings if

they might have a stake in what you are doing.

Norms That Create Awareness of Emotions

Norms That Help Regulate EmotionsNorms That Help Regulate Emotions

design an intranet to serve everyone’s needs. We’ve seen many situations in which a team is so enamored of its so- lution that it is caught completely by surprise when oth- ers in the company don’t share its enthusiasm.

Some of the most emotionally intelligent teams we have seen are so attuned to their broader organizational context that it affects how they frame and communicate their own needs and accomplishments. A team at the chemical-processing company KoSa, for example, felt it needed a new piece of manufacturing equipment, but se- nior management wasn’t so sure the purchase was a pri- ority. Aware that the decision makers were still on the fence, the team decided to emphasize the employee safety benefits of the new machine – just one aspect of its desir- ability to them, but an issue of paramount importance to management. At a plant safety meeting attended by high- level managers, they made the case that the equipment they were seeking would greatly reduce the risk of injury to workers. A few weeks later they got it.

Sometimes, a team must be particularly aware of the needs and feelings of another group within the organiza- tion. We worked with an information technology com- pany where the hardware engineers worked separately from the software engineers to achieve the same goal – faster processing and fewer crashes. Each could achieve only so much independently. When finally a hardware team leader went out of his way to build relationships with the software people, the two teams began to coop- erate – and together, they achieved 20% to 40% higher per- formance than had been targeted.

This kind of positive outcome can be facilitated by norms that encourage a group to recognize the feel- ings and needs of other groups. We saw effective norms for interteam awareness at a division of AMP, where each manufacturing team is respon- sible for a step in the manufac- turing process and they need one another to complete the product on time. Team leaders there meet in the morning to understand the needs, resources, and schedules of each team. If one team is ahead and another is behind, they reallocate re- sources. Members of the faster team help the team that’s behind and do so in a friendly way that empathizes with their situation and builds the relationship.

Most of the examples we’ve been citing show teams that are not only aware of but also able to influence out- siders’ needs and perspectives. This ability to regulate emotion at the cross-boundary level is a group’s version of the “social skills” so critical to individual emotional intel- ligence. It involves developing external relationships and

gaining the confidence of outsiders, adopting an ambas- sadorial role instead of an isolationist one.

A manufacturing team we saw at KoSa displayed very high social skills in working with its maintenance team. It recognized that, when problems occurred in the plant, the maintenance team often had many activities on its plate. All things being equal, what would make the main- tenance team consider this particular manufacturing group a high priority? Knowing a good relationship would be a factor, the manufacturing team worked hard to build good ties with the maintenance people. At one point, for instance, the manufacturing team showed its appreciation by nominating the maintenance team for “Team of the Quarter” recognition – and then doing all the letter writing and behind-the-scenes praising that would ultimately help the maintenance team win. In turn, the manufacturing team’s good relationship with maintenance helped it become one of the highest pro- ducers in the plant.

A Model for Group Emotional Intelligence We’ve been discussing the need for teams to learn to channel emotion effectively at the three levels of human interaction important to them: team to individual mem- ber, team to itself, and team to outside entities. Together, the norms we’ve been exploring help groups work with emotions productively and intelligently. Often, groups with emotionally intelligent members have norms like these in place, but it’s unlikely any group would uncon- sciously come up with all the norms we have outlined. In other words, this is a model for group emotional intel-

ligence that any work team could benefit from by applying it deliberately.

What would the ultimate emotionally intelligent team look like? Closest to the ideal are some of the teams we’ve seen at IDEO, the celebrated industrial design firm. IDEO’s creative teams are responsible for the look and feel of products like Apple’s first mouse, the Crest toothpaste tube, and the

Palm V personal digital assistant. The firm routinely wins competitions for the form and function of its designs and even has a business that teaches creative problem-solving techniques to other companies.

The nature of IDEO’s work calls for high group emo- tional intelligence. Under pressure of client deadlines and budget estimates, the company must deliver innovative, aesthetic solutions that balance human needs with engi- neering realities. It’s a deep philosophical belief at IDEO

88 harvard business review

B u i l d i n g t h e E m o t i o n a l I n t e l l i g e n c e o f G r o u p s

We’ve seen many situations

in which a team is so enamored

of its solution that it is caught

completely by surprise when

others in the company don’t

share its enthusiasm.

that great design is best accomplished through the cre- ative friction of diverse teams and not the solitary pursuit of brilliant individuals, so it’s imperative that the teams at IDEO click. In our study of those teams, we found group norms supporting emotional intelligence at all three lev- els of our model.

First, the teams at IDEO are very aware of individual team members’ emotions, and they are adept at regulating them. For example, an IDEO de- signer became very frustrated because someone from market- ing was insisting a logo be ap- plied to the designer’s product, which he felt would ruin it visu- ally. At a meeting about the prod- uct, the team’s project leader picked up on the fact that some- thing was wrong. The designer was sitting off by himself, and things “didn’t look right.” The project leader looked into the situation and then initiated a negotiation that led to a mutual solution.

IDEO team members also confront one another when they break norms. This is common during brainstorming sessions, where the rule is that people must defer judg- ment and avoid shooting down ideas. If someone breaks that norm, the team comes down on him in a playful yet forceful way (imagine being pelted by foam toys). Or if someone is out of line, the norm is to stand up and call her on it immediately. If a client is in the room, the con- frontation is subtler – perhaps a kick under the chair.

Teams at IDEO also demonstrate strengths in group- focused emotional intelligence. To ensure they have a high level of self-awareness, teams constantly seek feed- back from both inside and outside the organization. Most important, they work very closely with customers. If a de- sign is not meeting customer expectations, the team finds out quickly and takes steps to modify it.

Regulating group emotion at IDEO often means pro- viding outlets for stress. This is a company that believes in playing and having fun. Several hundred finger blasters (a toy that shoots soft projectiles) have been placed around the building for employees to pick up and start shooting when they’re frustrated. Indeed, the design firm’s culture welcomes the expression of emotions, so it’s not uncommon for someone – whether happy or angry – to stand up and yell. IDEO has even created fun office projects that people can work on if they need a break. For example, they might have a project to design the com- pany holiday card or to design the “tourist stop” displays seen by visitors.

Finally, IDEO teams also have norms to ensure they are aware of the needs and concerns of people outside their boundaries and that they use that awareness to develop

relationships with those individuals and groups. On dis- play at IDEO is a curious model: a toy truck with plastic pieces on springs that pop out of the bed of the truck when a button is pressed. It turns out the model com- memorates an incident that taught a variety of lessons. The story centers on a design team that had been work- ing for three weeks on a very complex plastic enclosure

for a product. Unfortunately, on the Thursday before a Monday client deadline, when an engi- neer was taking it to be painted, it slipped from his pickup bed and exploded on the road at 70 mph. The team was willing to work through the weekend to rebuild the part but couldn’t fin- ish it without the help of the outside fabricator it had used on the original. Because they had taken the time to build a

good relationship with the fabricator, its people were will- ing to go above and beyond the call of duty. The light- hearted display was a way for teammates to show the en- gineer that all was forgiven – and a reminder to the rest of the organization of how a team in crisis can get by with a little help from its friends.

Where Do Norms Come From? Not every company is as dependent on teams and their emotional intelligence as IDEO. But now more than ever, we see companies depending on teams for decisions and tasks that, in another time, would have been the work of individuals. And unfortunately, we also see them discov- ering that a team can have everything going for it – the brightest and most qualified people, access to resources, a clear mission – but still fail because it lacks group emo- tional intelligence.

Norms that build trust, group identity, and group effi- cacy are the key to making teams click. They allow an oth- erwise highly skilled and resourced team to fulfill its po- tential, and they can help a team faced with substantial challenges achieve surprising victories. So how do norms as powerful as the ones we’ve described in this article come about? In our research, we saw them being intro- duced from any of five basic directions: by formal team leaders, by informal team leaders, by courageous follow- ers, through training, or from the larger organizational culture. (For more on how to establish the norms de- scribed in this article, see the sidebar “Building Norms for Three Levels of Group Emotional Intelligence.”)

At the Hay Group, for example, it was the deliberate ac- tion of a team leader that helped one group see the im- portance of emotions to the group’s overall effectiveness. Because this particular group was composed of managers

march 2001 89

B u i l d i n g t h e E m o t i o n a l I n t e l l i g e n c e o f G r o u p s

A team can have everything

going for it – the brightest and

most qualified people, access to

resources, a clear mission – but

still fail because it lacks group

emotional intelligence.

90 harvard business review

B u i l d i n g t h e E m o t i o n a l I n t e l l i g e n c e o f G r o u p s

creating the greatest value in the new economy. Unfortu- nately, it’s the most difficult piece of the puzzle to put in place at companies that don’t already have it. For organi- zations with long histories of employees checking their emotions at the door, change will occur, if at all, one team at a time.

Becoming Intelligent About Emotion The research presented in this article arose from one sim- ple imperative: in an era of teamwork, it’s essential to fig- ure out what makes teams work. Our research shows that, just like individuals, the most effective teams are emo- tionally intelligent ones – and that any team can attain emotional intelligence.

In this article, we’ve attempted to lay out a model for positive change, containing the most important types of norms a group can create to enhance its emotional intel- ligence. Teams, like all groups, operate according to such norms. By working to establish norms for emotional awareness and regulation at all levels of interaction, teams can build the solid foundation of trust, group iden- tity, and group efficacy they need for true cooperation and collaboration – and high performance overall.

Reprint r0103e To place an order, call 1-800-988-0886.

from many different cultures, its leader knew he couldn’t assume all the members possessed a high level of inter- personal understanding. To establish that norm, he intro- duced novelties like having a meeting without a table, using smaller groups, and conducting an inventory of team members’ various learning styles.

Interventions like these can probably be done only by a formal team leader. The ways informal leaders or other team members enhance emotional intelligence are typi- cally more subtle, though often just as powerful. Anyone might advance the cause, for example, by speaking up if the group appears to be ignoring an important perspec- tive or feeling – or simply by doing his or her part to cre- ate an affirmative environment.

Training courses can also go a long way toward in- creasing emotional awareness and showing people how to regulate emotions. We know of many companies that now focus on emotional issues in leadership development courses, negotiation and communication workshops, and employee-assistance programs like those for stress man- agement. These training programs can sensitize team members to the importance of establishing emotionally intelligent norms.

Finally, perhaps more than anything, a team can be in- fluenced by a broader organizational culture that recog- nizes and celebrates employee emotion. This is clearly the case at IDEO and, we believe, at many of the companies